All Homes to be re-valued for Property Tax in November 2021

Dempo1

touts wrote: »

Fully agree with property tax to pay for services but it should be based on those services not on some fictional valuation of the house.

Start with a base of say €20
Connected to public sewer. €20
Street lighting outside your house €5
Footpath outside your house €5
Within 5km of a motorway €5
Within 5km of a Library. €5
Within 2km of a School €5
Within 1km of a public transportation link €5
And so on

Basically add up every service in your area that the tax is supposed to pay for and pay a small contribution to that service. Those services generally add to the value of the house anyway but this way people can see what their tax is paying for. People benefitting the most from state services the most pay the most .

Just in response

I have my own waste plant

I recycle most things but pay for Refuse when required.

I have Solar Power but have an ESB connection as back up and pay government levy for the luxury

I have my own water well

I live in the middle of Nowhere

What services am I paying for exactly?

The Road outside is supposed to be partly covered by the Motor Tax I pay

Yes I'm be pedantic but not every house has the luxury of services you mention, just a humble opinion

Geuze

Ger Roe wrote: »

While I agree we should have a list of services and charges, I would also argue that we were already paying for these services before property tax.

The LPT is not new income to the councils, it replaces previous income.

So there won't be any new service provided specifically due to LPT income.

Geuze

Dempo1 wrote: »

What services am I paying for exactly?

The Road outside is supposed to be partly covered by the Motor Tax I pay

Biggest element of LA spending is on housing.

Social housing / HAP / RAS, homelessness, etc.

Roads also big.

Geuze

Dempo1 wrote: »

Just in response

What services am I paying for exactly?

http://localauthorityfinances.com/

Pick your local authority here and have a look.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

http://localauthorityfinances.com/

Pick your local authority here and have a look.

So I owe Louth CoCo, give or take, €240 per year. Which is less than the average LPT I would imagine.


Although, of course, for those unfamiliar, Louth CoCo are arguably the single worst, laziest and incompetent of all the Councils. They've also manage to spend less than the national average in every category on that site, except "Development Management" and I'd love to know where that money goes, because feck all gets done for it.

ForestFire

L1011 wrote: »

Houses built >2013 haven't got a comparable valuation date hence can't be taxed, there is a new valuation date in November 2021 so that sorts that out.

It will then be the case that >2022 houses aren't taxed til a valuation date is set again. The original revaluation date was meant to be something like 2015 but has been repeatedly booted down the road when elections loom.

I'm sure they could come up with some conservative value, seeing as the just built it, there is probably a mortgage and valuation for this, and a valuation for insurance!

148multi

Dempo1 wrote: »

Just in response

I have my own waste plant

I recycle most things but pay for Refuse when required.

I have Solar Power but have an ESB connection as back up and pay government levy for the luxury

I have my own water well

I live in the middle of Nowhere

What services am I paying for exactly?

The Road outside is supposed to be partly covered by the Motor Tax I pay

Yes I'm be pedantic but not every house has the luxury of services you mention, just a humble opinion

Well someone has to pay for the mobile library ðŸ˜

Rrrrrr2

The 2013 exemption doesn’t seem fair to the rest of us. Was t aware that was the case

hometruths

ForestFire wrote: »

I'm sure they could come up with some conservative value, seeing as the just built it, there is probably a mortgage and valuation for this, and a valuation for insurance!

Here's an idea - the purchase price?

L1011

People would be arguing that they should be paying based on what the purchase price notionally could have been at the last valuation date - cause thats the date everyone else is paying for. Legislation would have to be quite strong on that to avoid challenge.

Basically it was meant to be every 3 years, which could be argued for on the basis of development levies paid as part of the house cost - but its somehow turned in to 8.

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

Here's an idea - the purchase price?

That would be reasonable, in fairness. If I buy a house for 10k tomorrow, and it suddenly becomes worth 20k overnight because of basket case economics, it doesn't actually benefit me at all (unless I bought, planning to sell).


Most people's incomes aren't raising and dropping with erratic house pricing, so basing it on the purchase price would be a sensible thing to do.

Jerry Attrick

Ger Roe wrote: »

Because it has no relationship with your ability to pay. It is a notional value should you want to sell your house and would be OK if you paid it then. But .... my wages have not increased and I don't see how I need to pay more tax because my neighbours have sold their houses and apparently raised the value of my house at the same time.

I am not selling and it is already costing me more of my supposedly disposable (after tax income) to maintain it and now I have to pay more tax because someone else decides to value my house at a higher rate???? Anyway, I bought and paid for my house with my own money... without needing or getting any help from government, in fact I saved them money by doing so.... why then do I have to be punished for that achievement?

I was told at school that tax has to be fair and seen to be so, this is not. Tax the sale price, if you have to... not the estimate.

You have the option to defer the LPT if your income is too small, although the interest rate payable is very high.

jimmycrackcorm

NIMAN wrote: »

Yet they ask homeowners whose houses have Mica and are falling down, to pay it.

Those people will get a huge whack of taxpayers' money in exchange so it's a bargain. Many houses will have to be rebuilt which is in the hundreds of thousands.

I wonder how much sympathy they'd get were the cost of that scheme directly funded by increased property taxes for everyone else.

Calahonda52

Does this table in the indo make sense

someone might paste the table.

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/how-much-is-your-house-worth/q-and-a-how-the-changes-to-property-tax-will-affect-homeowners-40491193.html

band widened so will some drop down in the payment.
I am glad to see mine capped at 2830:D

hometruths

L1011 wrote: »

People would be arguing that they should be paying based on what the purchase price notionally could have been at the last valuation date - cause thats the date everyone else is paying for. Legislation would have to be quite strong on that to avoid challenge.

Basically it was meant to be every 3 years, which could be argued for on the basis of development levies paid as part of the house cost - but its somehow turned in to 8.

No matter what way you do it, some people will argue it's not fair, next door is better off than me, whinge, moan, whine etc etc.

The purchase price is much fairer system for all, rather than just saying sure if buy a house now you don't have to pay it all.

Very simple - purchase price and valuation date every 3 years.

As it is, it is just another example of how in Ireland we seem to excel at creating a laughable mess for all in the interests of pandering to whoever is whingeing loudest.

The starting point should be legislation is strong as that is good government.

Instead we have the attitude, oh we best avoid doing that because we'd have to ensure we have strong legislation.

Beggars belief.

Ace2007

schmittel wrote: »

Here's an idea - the purchase price?

But if you bought the a semi D house just after the last crash - you could be paying far less than your neighbor under the same roof who bought it just before the crash. - Would that be fair?

Ger Roe

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

You have the option to defer the LPT if your income is too small, although the interest rate payable is very high.

That doesn't take away from the fact that LPT is an inequitable tax. I get taxed more because someone else made money on their house sale and on an asset that I own and paid for myself.

Geuze wrote: »

The LPT is not new income to the councils, it replaces previous income.

So there won't be any new service provided specifically due to LPT income.

I know.... and yet we are still paying the previous taxes that originally paid for those services. It was a classic move of take away with one hand and hold the other hand out for additional payments. LPT is an additional tax on existing taxes for the same services, even though you can never actually get a list of what services your are paying for and are entitled to.

We all know it was brought in under EU directive to show how sorry we were for crashing the economy and having to get bailed out. It might be slightly more acceptable if we got the range of services and accountability from our councils that we see in Europe, but we don't.

It's all stick and no carrot.

alias no.9

I'll probably be lambasted here but property taxes should be split into a habitation tax paid by the occupant to pay for local services and a site value tax paid by the owner and used to keep a lid on property prices and fund public housing schemes (available to everyone equally) so there's feedback loop to provide more units in high demand areas.

Pinoy adventure

The government badly need the funds too get out of the black hole there in.
A few euro per household won't make much of a difference at the end of the month

hometruths

Ace2007 wrote: »

But if you bought the a semi D house just after the last crash - you could be paying far less than your neighbor under the same roof who bought it just before the crash. - Would that be fair?

I am only talking about purchase price for properties bought after 2013. i.e everybody in existing houses were valued in 2013, and subsequent purchases base LPT on purchase price.

So the scenario you are talk about never happened.

But assuming it did, if the brought in an LPT in 2004 for example, then yes it's fair.

You would know what your liability is pre purchase as it is based on the price. If you don't want to pay more LPT for your house than your neighbour, then don't pay more for the house than your neighbour did.

However if you are happy with the purchase price, it follows that you are happy with the LPT liability. It is the same as stamp duty.

Perfectly fair.

standardg60

touts wrote: »

Fully agree with property tax to pay for services but it should be based on those services not on some fictional valuation of the house.

Start with a base of say €20
Connected to public sewer. €20
Street lighting outside your house €5
Footpath outside your house €5
Within 5km of a motorway €5
Within 5km of a Library. €5
Within 2km of a School €5
Within 1km of a public transportation link €5
And so on

Basically add up every service in your area that the tax is supposed to pay for and pay a small contribution to that service. Those services generally add to the value of the house anyway but this way people can see what their tax is paying for. People benefitting the most from state services pay the most .

When i built my house my planning permission included substantial (more than 5% of the build cost) contributions to water, lighting, sewerage, parks and road maintenance.
LPT is double taxation imo, and all i see in return are fancied up roundabouts.

jimmycrackcorm

Ace2007 wrote: »

Sure it's only going to be for a few year - SF are totally against it - so when they get in power it'll be scraped:rolleyes:

Who knows, they might follow the FF strategy from 1977 to abolish domestic rates (where we ended up with VAT and income tax increases in lieu).

hometruths

Ace2007 wrote: »

Sure it's only going to be for a few year - SF are totally against it - so when they get in power it'll be scraped:rolleyes:

They plan to replace it with a wealth tax. A lot of Revenue to be raised from the never SF voters.

elperello

From a political point of view why didn't they just didn't lie low and keep collecting the free money?

Maybe just bring the 2013 + houses into the net because that's hard to argue with.

For a small amount of money they are just stirring people up and giving the opposition an open goal.

Ace2007

schmittel wrote: »

They plan to replace it with a wealth tax. A lot of Revenue to be raised from the never SF voters.

Oh i know - but i would love to see what they do for the people who are asset rich but cash poor.

If you think that Ireland has 78000+ millionaire for instance - how many of them are millionaires because of their private residence?

Dempo1

Geuze wrote: »

http://localauthorityfinances.com/

Pick your local authority here and have a look.

As explained, I have Zero need for any services my local authority has to offer but equally I'll say, I'd rather have the choice to pay for services in and when supplied. I'm 20 years in my home, and only once have I had an interaction with local authority, that was when Irish water tried to turn my humble 250 year cottage into a commercial entity for charging purposes, this besides the fact I had my own well and supply, I only contacted authority because irish water claimed my information given to them by the authorities which of course turned out to be quite a porky.

hometruths

Ace2007 wrote: »

Oh i know - but i would love to see what they do for the people who are asset rich but cash poor.

If you think that Ireland has 78000+ millionaire for instance - how many of them are millionaires because of their private residence?

They claim they have this covered.
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2013/WealthTaxProposalsWeb.pdf

If your house is worth 1.1m but you're short of cash, this is not really going to have much impact on you.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

They claim they have this covered.
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2013/WealthTaxProposalsWeb.pdf

If your house is worth 1.1m but you're short of cash, this is not really going to have much impact on you.

That gave me a good laugh. Thank you.

Ace2007

schmittel wrote: »

They claim they have this covered.
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2013/WealthTaxProposalsWeb.pdf

If your house is worth 1.1m but you're short of cash, this is not really going to have much impact on you.

So SF want everyone in the state to tell them how much they are worth, whether the assets are in Ireland or abroad :rolleyes:

That's also an 8+ years old - can't count on that being a true reflection of what they would do.

One reason for the new build exemption was
the valuations were frozen for years - how would you value a recent new build vs a house valued many years before?
Two otherwise identical houses built years apart could have differing rates.

tjhook

I wish they'd fix the redistributive element of LPT. A county shouldn't receive LPT funding from other counties until it has maximised it's own ability to raise funds - i.e. set it's LPT rate at the +15%.

As it is, there are instances where some counties have their own high LTP rates funding other counties that have lower rates.

E.g. Galway county sets the standard rate and is a recipient of redistributions. Next door, Clare has the +15% rate but is a nett contributor to the system.

touts

Dempo1 wrote: »

Just in response

I have my own waste plant

I recycle most things but pay for Refuse when required.

I have Solar Power but have an ESB connection as back up and pay government levy for the luxury

I have my own water well

I live in the middle of Nowhere

What services am I paying for exactly?

The Road outside is supposed to be partly covered by the Motor Tax I pay

Yes I'm be pedantic but not every house has the luxury of services you mention, just a humble opinion

If you get no services you should only pay the basic lowest fee.

touts

schmittel wrote: »

They claim they have this covered.
https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2013/WealthTaxProposalsWeb.pdf

If your house is worth 1.1m but you're short of cash, this is not really going to have much impact on you.

That's the problem with Trotskyists. They promise you that someone else will pay. Then after the revolution you discover you were the someone else they had in mind.

elperello

touts wrote: »

If you get no services you should only pay the basic lowest fee.

It's based on the valuation of the property.

I know a family who have to pay a contribution to get their public roadway repaired and they have to pay LPT annually as well.

Dempo1

Dempo1 wrote: »

Are you offering to pay mine? What kind of statement is that?

Its being realistic

Taxes are needed to fund the country and pay for covid expenses, they just are.

This is one of the more fairer taxes but it is laughably low, it really should be at least double of what it currently is.

While they are at it, they should look at how they can bring in water charges so we are not diverting existing funds to pay for Irish Water. That alone would free up several billion in existing taxes which could be used to fund any number of services

elperello

tjhook wrote: »

I wish they'd fix the redistributive element of LPT. A county shouldn't receive LPT funding from other counties until it has maximised it's own ability to raise funds - i.e. set it's LPT rate at the +15%.

As it is, there are instances where some counties have their own high LTP rates funding other counties that have lower rates.

E.g. Galway county sets the standard rate and is a recipient of redistributions. Next door, Clare has the +15% rate but is a nett contributor to the system.

LV on Prime Time now saying they are fixing the redistributive element. Each county will keep what they raise and the top up will come from central funds.

touts

Geuze wrote: »

http://localauthorityfinances.com/

Pick your local authority here and have a look.

Interesting numbers. Dublin City has a budget of around double per person than most other counties have. No surprise there. It shows in the services and infrastructure there. Would also like to see the massive spend on administration separated out so we can see what actually gets spent on services and what gets spent on the wages, perks, pensions etc for the army of officials and administrators employ d by each council.

Dempo1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Its being realistic

Taxes are needed to fund the country and pay for covid expenses, they just are.

This is one of the more fairer taxes but it is laughably low, it really should be at least double of what it currently is.

While they are at it, they should look at how they can bring in water charges so we are not diverting existing funds to pay for Irish Water. That alone would free up several billion in existing taxes which could be used to fund any number of services

I've personally no issue paying taxes and certainly understand the need for same, I just have a strongly held view on property tax on a home. I've paid my LPT from the outset and can painfully accept the amount I pay which is tge lowest band. I really don't believe increasing it is fair regardless of what band it is, there are ample other potential taxation measures that could be looked at. At 53, I may seem old fashioned but I've worked hard for my humble cottage and never thought when purchasing it 21 years ago it would be subject to taxation, particularly given all the other taxes homeowners and indeed tenant's pay.

Maxface

This is just a tax by another way, OK pay a Property Tax but how about we get something from it. Bins, we pay our own, Fire brigade we pay ourselves, I am happy to pay an amount per year for a service I need or might need. Not just a tax.

lawrencesummers

Why doesn’t the government tax the rental income of investment properties owned by cuckoo funds.

You know, make the rich pay some tax?

L1011

Dempo1 wrote: »

I've personally no issue paying taxes and certainly understand the need for same, I just have a strongly held view on property tax on a home. I've paid my LPT from the outset and can painfully accept the amount I pay which is tge lowest band. I really don't believe increasing it is fair regardless of what band it is, there are ample other potential taxation measures that could be looked at. At 53, I may seem old fashioned but I've worked hard for my humble cottage and never thought when purchasing it 21 years ago it would be subject to taxation, particularly given all the other taxes homeowners and indeed tenant's pay.

21 years ago we were only a few years since the end of various house-based council service changes (in most but not all council areas) and there was a party in government (the PDs) that had campaigned for the prior election on reinstating them nationally - it's something that was worth considering as a risk.

Even if it did take 11 years after that before the Household Charge came in in the end; it wasn't really off the cards for many years.

Ger Roe

Deleted User wrote: »

Its being realistic

Taxes are needed to fund the country and pay for covid expenses, they just are.

This is one of the more fairer taxes but it is laughably low, it really should be at least double of what it currently is.

While they are at it, they should look at how they can bring in water charges so we are not diverting existing funds to pay for Irish Water. That alone would free up several billion in existing taxes which could be used to fund any number of services

Fair? Not by a long shot..... It's an increased notional valuation that you have no control over, that has to be paid from the less rising pot of your personal (after tax already paid) income.

Pensioners are paying for the privilege of still living in a house they just about scraped by to pay for over many years, and they are now being hit with increasing taxes in their twilight years because a failed government housing policy that results in increased demand is apparently causing someone else's valuation of their property to rise????

It's not double what it currently is, because there would be riots on the streets and loss of election seats. That's why it's a mess, it was a lip service introduction intended to introduced softly and ramped up later, but no government has had the nerve to do so, because even they know it isn't fair.

Murph85

howiya wrote: »

Property tax is regressive because there is no consideration of an individuals ability to pay.

Very simplistic example. Eoin O'Broin and his neighbour own houses with equal value or within the same band. Eoin earns a TDs salary while the neighbour earns 30-40k a year yet they will pay the same amount of LPT.

On the other hand income tax is progressive because Eoin will pay more than the neighbour.

Lol! You got this from the ABC school of economics? What's progressive enough income tax for you ? Fifty percent over a pittance, because labour is so heavily taxed here, it benefits a huge amount at the expense of an easy to ignore political minority ?

jinish

I mortgaged a house last year. The house belongs to the bank. I will have to pay the mortgage for the next 33 years. It is not mine.
Now I need to fork an extra 780 per year.

Ace2007

jinish wrote: »

I mortgaged a house last year. The house belongs to the bank. I will have to pay the mortgage for the next 33 years. It is not mine.
Now I need to fork an extra 780 per year.

Is your name on that title deeds? If so the house belongs to you - the banks just have a charge on it - but they don’t own it. For instance if the bank owned it they could sell it but they don’t - you on the other hand could sell it and pay the bank back.

L1011

jinish wrote: »

I mortgaged a house last year. The house belongs to the bank. I will have to pay the mortgage for the next 33 years. It is not mine.
Now I need to fork an extra 780 per year.

None of the current rate bands are 780 apart. The band gaps are 90 euro except for the first one so 780 isn't even possible.

If the house you bought has gone up hugely in value since 2012 you might be looking at maybe 4 90 euro bands at most. And it would seem that the actual band rates are going to go down anyway.

jinish

L1011 wrote: »

None of the current rate bands are 780 apart. The band gaps are 90 euro except for the first one so 780 isn't even possible.

If the house you bought has gone up hugely in value since 2012 you might be looking at maybe 4 90 euro bands at most. And it would seem that the actual band rates are going to go down anyway.

New build house in 2020. Current Value 445k. LPT basic is 765. Final payable LPT will be 688 Euro after 10 % reduction from the county council.

L1011

jinish wrote: »

New build house in 2020. Current Value 445k. LPT basic is 765. Final payable LPT will be 688 Euro after 10 % reduction from the county council.

That new houses were going to be due for LPT at some point has been known since LPT was introduced. If you weren't aware of this it isn't anyone elses fault. For much of 2020 that due date was going to be 2021, so you've basically got another year off.

Its quite likely the LPT that gets charged will be more like 500 after the rate adjustments anyway.

jinish

Ace2007 wrote: »

Is your name on that title deeds? If so the house belongs to you - the banks just have a charge on it - but they don’t own it. For instance if the bank owned it they could sell it but they don’t - you on the other hand could sell it and pay the bank back.

Our name is on the title deed. I am not mourning, but still...

If I miss few months of payments, the bank could repossess the house. Because it's still not mine.

What's the point in paying higher band tax? Not even a mortgage interest tax relief.

I think the middle-income earners are the one who gets ****ed all the time.

Geuze

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Why doesn’t the government tax the rental income of investment properties owned by cuckoo funds.

You know, make the rich pay some tax?

The rental income collected by REITs is taxed, as it is paid out to the shareholders of the REITs.

Regarding foreign funds, I'm not sure.